Outside the Square??? (1 Viewer)

[Chemboy]

Am I the only person who has recently raised their head from another tedious piece of prescribed tripe and questioned: "exactly what am I learning?".
I'll use Advanced english as the case, as it would be familiar to more people out there, on account of it (english) being a mandatory course. Therein lies the first problem: why is a course with so many inconsistencies (won't specify-space constraints) forced upon us, and have so much emphasis placed upon it, no less? Nobody seems to have a definite answer (if you do, please inform) but the multitudeof evidence seems to say that it is because the subject would crumple from apathy. And why is this? Because the majority of the brittle nonsense floating in the air during those lessons is not relative to the real world. We are not taught to evaluate things for ourselves. We do not learn to form our own opinions, and those that do are alienated. Instead, we regurgitate the incredible opinions of others which we are shovelled with every waking minute. This is illustrated (there's a well-hackneyed phrase) by the fact that the "intelligent" students seldom have an enlightening opinion about anything that they have not read somewhere else.
I'll end this post here, so as not to give a long-winded intro. If you feel the same way, or indeed have a comment, I'de love to hear from you. Regards -Luke

 

[ameh]

if u go to sefton, i understand

 

[neo o]

English essays are a load of utter bull, recently i've done well because i've learnt how to work the system.

They dont look at the quality of your points or response
They dont look for originality

They look for flow and techniques and that's IT.

Some girl in my grade (a "top" english student as well) referred to an anarchist as a symbol for democracy (wtf?) and made pitiable references to Iraq to attempt to tie her essay in with current events (like we were told to do) and did well, they didnt even pick up the inconsistancies with her argument!

And fuck it, so many of these people write poorly written, poorly structured memorised essays and use the the thesaurus on their computer to meet sophisticated language criteria (while at the same time not knowing wtf they are saying and creating sentences that just DONT MAKE SENSE) and yet..

inexplicably

getting good marks.

 

[Slidey]

I got 45/60 rank for Advanced English. 59% for the test, average 68%.

The main reasons being those you mentioned, Luke. I say to hell with that in my tests and essays and go off on wonderful tangents. Unfortunately, if I am to do well in the HSC, I'll have to change my tune. But hey, they let me go on tangents in Extension one. In fact, they actually encourage me to think in that class. Two different teachers.

 

[hyperbole]

I know. english is techniques and that's where the marks are coming from. as long as you can point out varous techniques and its effect you will probably do pretty well. That's basically the system at my school anyway.

 

[truly-in-bliss]

Am I the only person who has recently raised their head from another tedious piece of prescribed tripe and questioned: "exactly what am I learning?".

no you are not, my friend is doing a phd on this.

Therein lies the first problem: why is a course with so many inconsistencies (won't specify-space constraints) forced upon us, and have so much emphasis placed upon it, no less?

the skills u devleop in english is essential to workplace and everyday living. the most basic jobs require essay writing/reporting/listening /analysing/reading comprehension skills
[/QUOTE] but the multitudeof evidence seems to say that it is because the subject would crumple from apathy. And why is this? Because the majority of the brittle nonsense floating in the air during those lessons is not relative to the real world. [/QUOTE]
the subject would crumple from apathy??? just because u might not like it does not being the majority of students also share your view. unfortunately the brittle nonesense u talk abt is common knowledge. the texts that u are study might seem remote and detached from the pratical world, but there set the background for the society we live in.

it is through Animal Farm you learn more about Russian politics (ie: the real world). It is through Julius Caesar you learn more about the interplay of power and how Bush uses the same mechanism to pupeteer his war (ie: the real world). It is through Speeches you learn about the great lives that have walked before you, and if Atwood, Linkin and King are not real enough to be a part of your real world, then my deepest condolensces to such tragedy.

We are not taught to evaluate things for ourselves. We do not learn to form our own opinions, and those that do are alienated. Instead, we regurgitate the incredible opinions of others which we are shovelled with every waking minute. This is illustrated (there's a well-hackneyed phrase) by the fact that the "intelligent" students seldom have an enlightening opinion about anything that they have not read somewhere else.

The new syllabus introduced the idea of intrinsic and extrinsic reading and as well as dominant/alternative/resistant readings to encourage students to think outside the realm of regurgitation.

many students do resort to study guides instead of self exploration, though you will find, original thoughts backed by quotes/evidence and a strong analysis will get u further than a study guide.

this friend i know is been creidted with the title of *intelligent* even though he resorted to study guides, but hte reason why he does so well is cuz he has really good essay structure, which is soemhting the rest of the class lacked. my pt is? eveyrthign is relative. How smart is the class? if you are getting good marks in a bad class it simply means u r better than others in that particular class, it does not credit ur intelligence.


i do agree with u on some aspects. i think we should have better compulsary texts, but then there is the arguement of who decides the cannon and what is literary worthy. However, by relating English as to a subject that will crumple from apathy and is full of brittel nonesense is soemthing that i feel strongly against.

 

[neo o]

I think the set texts are fine imo - there is quite a bit of choice. What's always galled me is that the school picks for you.

I hate Austin, but I got Emma/Clueless in Advanced and bloody North and South annoyed the hell out of me in 3U.

I would have loved to do Orwell or R&G are Dead, but oh well

 

[Not-That-Bright]

People who want to be 'outside the square' should do it on their own time.
Most people who feel like this simply take up the teachers, other students time with pointless arguments that solve nothing.

The point of the hsc is to get a high score, learn what they have to teach.

 

[Sarah168]

People who complain about not being allowed originality in the subject or suggest that we are merely regurgitating the critiques of other writer obviously have forgotten that a major part of English is "responding". English is not cutting and pasting, although some of us DO do that it is about personally responding to the texts and the issues it raises. Very simple concept yet people still sit around whining that it is irrelevant, pointless blah blah.

We are not taught to evaluate things for ourselves? That is one of the more absurd notions you raised. We are not only TAUGHT to but are ENCOURAGED to...except, many of us CHOOSE not to, preferring to use study guides and comment that we are not allowed individuality. Yes, I am nit picking here and Im not referring to anybody in general but Im sure many of you have heard of similar cases.

 

[Ziff]

The English syllabus has no focus on things I would think are fundamental for understanding between people who speak the same bloody language:
1. The key one: GRAMMAR - there is no teaching of this AT ALL.
2. Vocabulary: there is no effort made to help people express themselves properly - instead we're often thrown texts that don't do anything e.g. Coleridge's poetry OR they're in a language not used anymore e.g. Shakespeare!
3. Acknowledging and identifying the differences between all the different varients of English (American, Australian, British etc) to facillitate in communication.

Essay skills are important, but the way it's taught now - real knowledge is not a component and all that matters is that you:

* have an introduction that addresses the question
* have a topic sentence
* include a definition
* include "proof" (which means anything really)
* expand on it a bit
* throw in some quotes from the texts
* write a conclusion

Woah! That'll really help! It doesn't, not in this day and age where our "common" language is fragmenting in areas. Not to mention that objectivity and correct facts or innovation is the most highly valued skill - HSC English allows anything to go (a bit like the New York Times!)

In some 3 Unit English courses - Retreat from the Global - English is not even an issue! All that matters is how LEFT you can be and how well you can bag out America whilst at the same time loading your polemical essay with a shitload of BS sociology!

It's pretty much useless for teaching a person how to write an essay, how to check your facts, how to make sure your writing is objective and accurate, how to try and be balanced and unbiased and how to express your views in a way that all people will understand (many p0zts 0n Th15555555 f04um!!! LOL!!!! d0Nt 5h0\/\/ t415!!! L0l!!!!!!!!!!). Not to mention that as the world is becoming more and more connected it should be important to teach people how to express themselves in English in a way that won't confuse or offend people. It does to some extent cover the "audience" aspect but I don't feel it's adequate.

 

[Chemboy]

Isn't the point of education to educate? My point is that if we're effectively being glorified dictaphones, we're not really learning anything to begin with. And please, address with respect. I make sure not to waste other's time with arguaments. You did not know that, you assumed. I would like feedback, but please do it politely.

 

[Chemboy]

However, if we do raise a point of view contrary to the teachers own personal beliefs, we are inevitably downgraded, no matter how good the basis of our perspective. Hence, people repeat what other successful students have said.
Please note that I do know that not all is irrelevant, and that I am not whining.
Sincerely -Luke

 

[Chemboy]

Truly-In-Bliss,
You make very good points. However, I would not necessarily call the majority of the content in english "essential to the workplace" (sorry, I don't know how to post quotes in my replies yet). How is misinterpereting something a composer has done essential to the workplace? We had an english teacher telling us that the reason that the text on the back of a video cassette was coloured yellow, was in fact to symbolise peace and harmony. When I suggeted that it may be so that we can actually read it (contrast) I was, as per usual, alienated. This usually the case when a student contradicts an english teacher based on practical/scientific reasonong. Having done a survey at my own school, I know this is not uncommon sentiment, and other replies seem to agree.
I know that some of the texts studied do point to real life events (the Fiftieth gate is another). But couldn't they choose GOOD texts. Half of it is in Yiddish, and you have to constantly refer to the translation! (NB, did not actually study 50th Gate) Clueless/Emma was a joke! What did we LEARN? Not to shoot your mouth off? I could have told you that when I was seven.
Unfortunately, I can only report about my school. Anything else is really just heresay. I'm not sure of my classes ranking in the country, but I know for a fact that, even if we do have a good arguament for an alternative point, we are still marked down, under someone who just vomited up last weeks lecture. It is difficult to deny that if we view a text negatively in a test, we are down graded, regardless of our essay quality or arguament.
It puts it into perspective when a friend of mine, who dropped out of year 8, and probably does not know the meaning of the word 'metaphor' has recently placed in an international poetry competition, and is invited to read it in Pensylvania, where he will be inducted into the International Poets Society!

Please keep the feedback comming, though, don't make it into a personal attack against me. I simply want to hold a discussion.

 

[Slidey]

What pisses me off most isn't the lack of grammar or vocabulary (although these annoy me to no end), it is the lack of etymology. Actually, I'm just bitter because I couldn't take Latin at my school.

 

[Ziff]

Yeah, Shakespeare could be used way better to demonstrate where words came from and how they evolved!